Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Surgery risks and recovery for dogs with swallowed objects
By Carey Beer, Andrew James et al.·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2022·1Royal Veterinary College, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Complications associated with and outcome of surgical intervention for treatment of esophageal foreign bodies in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 63 dogs that had swallowed foreign objects were treated with surgery after other methods failed or if there was damage to the esophagus. Most of these dogs had a procedure called a left intercostal thoracotomy to remove the object. While some dogs faced complications during or after surgery, about 75% were able to go home afterward. Long-term follow-up showed that most dogs did well, with only a few experiencing occasional vomiting or regurgitation. Overall, surgery for esophageal foreign bodies can be very effective, especially when less invasive options aren't successful.
People also search for: dog swallowed foreign object surgery · dog esophagus surgery complications · dog vomiting after foreign body removal
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify complications associated with and short- and long-term outcomes of surgical intervention for treatment of esophageal foreign bodies (EFBs) in dogs. ANIMALS: 63 client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES: Patient records from 9 veterinary hospitals were reviewed to identify dogs that underwent surgery for removal of an EFB or treatment or an associated esophageal perforation between 2007 and 2019. Long-term follow-up data were obtained via a client questionnaire. RESULTS: 54 of the 63 (85.7%) dogs underwent surgery after an unsuccessful minimally invasive procedure or subsequent evidence of esophageal perforation was identified. Esophageal perforation was present at the time of surgery in 42 (66.7%) dogs. Most dogs underwent a left intercostal thoracotomy (37/63 [58.7%]). Intraoperative complications occurred in 18 (28.6%) dogs, and 28 (50%) dogs had a postoperative complication. Postoperative complications were minor in 14 of the 28 (50%) dogs. Dehiscence of the esophagotomy occurred in 3 dogs. Forty-seven (74.6%) dogs survived to discharge. Presence of esophageal perforation preoperatively, undergoing a thoracotomy, and whether a gastrostomy tube was placed were significantly associated with not surviving to discharge. Follow-up information was available for 38 of 47 dogs (80.9%; mean follow-up time, 46.5 months). Infrequent vomiting or regurgitation was reported by 5 of 20 (25%) owners, with 1 dog receiving medication. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that surgical management of EFBs can be associated with a high success rate. Surgery should be considered when an EFB cannot be removed safely with minimally invasive methods or esophageal perforation is present.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34986116/